For I am seriously finding it impossible to find a simple single reason except "No more cuts!!!", but that then puts Labour into firm Marxist territory with the Communists and the hardline Socialist parties. To me, that is quite backwards.

If 'Progressive' politics relates to reform, then Labour failed on all possible criteria since 1997. What they largely failed on (House of Lords reform...I think the economy is a simple one, so I won't bother putting it as the main headline feature of their failure!) is now being dealt with within one year by the Coalition.

Seriously, what makes them 'Progressive'? Is it because the main party of the Coalition is called the 'Conservative Party'? From what I have seen from the coalition, they have proposed many, many reforms which are far from aiming to stay in the past. Tax, Health and other areas are being reformed.

(Original post by Aj12)
Cutting jobs and things tends to be regressive. Labour bloated the public sector giving more people work so thats social progress at the expense of the long term economy.

I think this could be wrong

Good point - was it not Lord Myners who remarked that endlessly spending was not 'Progressive' but simply irresponsible?

So is Labour's 'Progressive' approach merely 'show me the money'? If you ever asked a Labour politician what made Labour progressive, I would be willing to bet that they would not answer the question, but instead attack the Conservatives and the Coalition for everything under the sun.

Progressivism is a highly subjective term.
Taxing the bejesus out of the rich and cutting taxes on the poor is progressive for the poor, like Labour claims, but highly regressive for the rich and the economy.
Labour also claim that a tax cut on the rich would be regressive, but even with a cut they pay a higher % of their income as taxes, so does that still make it regressive, especially knowing the additional boost it would give to the economy?

For I am seriously finding it impossible to find a simple single reason except "No more cuts!!!", but that then puts Labour into firm Marxist territory with the Communists and the hardline Socialist parties. To me, that is quite backwards.

If 'Progressive' politics relates to reform, then Labour failed on all possible criteria since 1997. What they largely failed on (House of Lords reform...I think the economy is a simple one, so I won't bother putting it as the main headline feature of their failure!) is now being dealt with within one year by the Coalition.

Seriously, what makes them 'Progressive'? Is it because the main party of the Coalition is called the 'Conservative Party'? From what I have seen from the coalition, they have proposed many, many reforms which are far from aiming to stay in the past. Tax, Health and other areas are being reformed.

Labour is a regressive party, masquerading as a progressive one. If they were to work with the Coalition to make the cuts we need to make in the best places for the people of the UK, they would prove their merit.
Instead they criticise at every turn, and refuse to say where they would make cuts if they were in power.

Some of the Coalition cuts I sincerely disagree with (the majority I do agree with), but for Labour to brand themselves 'progressive' is a complete farce.

Nothing. They just stealth tax the hell out of the the poor instead and force them into a constant battle against high inflation. That way they can carry on winning elections on the basis that they care for the working class, when in actual fact they take more than they give state handouts.

For I am seriously finding it impossible to find a simple single reason except "No more cuts!!!", but that then puts Labour into firm Marxist territory with the Communists and the hardline Socialist parties. To me, that is quite backwards.

If 'Progressive' politics relates to reform, then Labour failed on all possible criteria since 1997. What they largely failed on (House of Lords reform...I think the economy is a simple one, so I won't bother putting it as the main headline feature of their failure!) is now being dealt with within one year by the Coalition.

Seriously, what makes them 'Progressive'? Is it because the main party of the Coalition is called the 'Conservative Party'? From what I have seen from the coalition, they have proposed many, many reforms which are far from aiming to stay in the past. Tax, Health and other areas are being reformed.

A woman aged 73 said that in her lifetime labour has created a recession everytime they have come into power. Three times they have done it, will the loyal followers of this party please stop being led over a cliff.

When someone shouts "no to cuts" they should be realising how much of an idiot they are. labour caused this, it made things worse by putting our economy in the crapper long before the recession hit us.

(Original post by HARRY PUTAH)
A woman aged 73 said that in her lifetime labour has created a recession everytime they have come into power. Three times they have done it, will the loyal followers of this party please stop being led over a cliff.

When someone shouts "no to cuts" they should be realising how much of an idiot they are. labour caused this, it made things worse by putting our economy in the crapper long before the recession hit us.

That woman is obviously right. Oh wait.

Seriously it's these kinds of arguments that just cause face palm moments. Even if there was a recession every single time Labour were in power it would not be enough evidence on its own to claim that Labour caused said recession. Also given the fact that the Conservative party have also been in power for at least 2 recessions (each whilst being in power for a significant amount of time before they occurred) puts a somewhat different spin on things.

In fact the generally accepted major recessions in the UK (since the great depression) are as follows:

(Original post by WharfedaleTiger)
I'll start with a few bits of legislations-section 28, the minimum wage, huge step forward in equalities, a massive aliviation of poverty, cancellation of Africas debt etc. etc....

The National Minimum Wage is a con. It has done nothing but hurt social mobility. People whose market value are far below the minimum wage, such as those with a criminal conviction or those who can't yet read yet read and write, etc., are effectively priced out of the jobs market. It's a complete fallacy that it protects workers from being paid too little; there is no evidence to show this. Instead, it destroys jobs for the unskilled, who now have it much harder to find a job to build up their experience, and earn some money at the same time, so that they can go on to demand higher paying jobs after.

Seriously it's these kinds of arguments that just cause face palm moments. Even if there was a recession every single time Labour were in power it would not be enough evidence on its own to claim that Labour caused said recession. Also given the fact that the Conservative party have also been in power for at least 2 recessions (each whilst being in power for a significant amount of time before they occurred) puts a somewhat different spin on things.

In fact the generally accepted major recessions in the UK (since the great depression) are as follows:

so looking at that data it suggests that the woman is entirely incorrect especially considering the 1990 - 1992 recession which occurred after 11 years of Conservative rule.

1973-75 was a global issue. 1992 was due to the ERM screw up, had Labour won the 1990 election I promise you the fallout from that event would have made them unelectable pretty much permanently. And 80-82 was due to Labour policy towards the end of the 70's.

Might I also add the late 40's were pretty bad after Labours decision to take a loan from the US on their terms in order to create the Welfare State and transition to Keynesian economics. A decision that wasn't necessary but they still carried out.

(Original post by Er-El)
The National Minimum Wage is a con. It has done nothing but hurt social mobility. People whose market value are far below the minimum wage, such as those with a criminal conviction or those who can't yet read yet read and write, etc., are effectively priced out of the jobs market. It's a complete fallacy that it protects workers from being paid too little; there is no evidence to show this. Instead, it destroys jobs for the unskilled, who now have it much harder to find a job to build up their experience, and earn some money at the same time, so that they can go on to demand higher paying jobs after.

So it's fair that in an hours time I would be working for £3 an hour if the retail company I work for says so?